svensota

svensota

I won't be unnecessarily pugilistic, and you won't write arrogant, condescending, duplicitous, long-winded posts, some that equate President Obama with Hitler, as well as other paranoid right-wing pronouncements without substance.

Oh, and you also won't whine and preach. That would be good, too. Just remember, my new and dear friend: Mi aerodeslizadoresta lieno de anguilas.

svensota

No, no, MIT. The fascists are on the far right, the Marxists are on the far left. At least get your definitions right.

I'm a liberal. You seem to have left "liberals" out of your blanket condemnation. I am not an atheist. I am not a Marxist. (There are about 12 left in the world, by the way.) And I'm no socialist, either.

I am a Christian. I am a businessman. I am a veteran. I even pay a bunch of taxes both personal and corporate. And, I'm as red-blooded an American as you could ever hope to be.

No one is trying to silence or harm you. Please continue to post whatever you want. But don't be surprised or get all sensitive when we don't buy into your..uh...ahem...narrow point of view.

Politics is a rough game. Play it if you can take it. If not, take up badminton or something that will make you happy.

svensota

Deerhunt: I'm sure MIT finds it disagreeable when people don't swoon to his point of view, or when he gets skunked in an argument. I've learned that it's just best to let him have both barrels and move on. Some can take the heat and others pretend that they are above it all. It shouldn't take you too long to figure this out.

Just a word to the wise from someone far wiser than you. Or, so MIT would like you to think.

deerhunt

deerhunt

Auntydem,I actually watch all stations, you have to to get a view from all aspects, even the main media outlets such as CBS and NBC complaign about this president not having the number of press conferences of past presidents where they are able to ask questions. He saves himself for Oprah and Leno where the questions are easier. I prefer to see the press challenge a president and make him explain things more in depth . To bring charges against the president would require the attorney general to do that ,no matter what administration ,highly unlikely.The other option is the House or Senate with enough votes trying to impeach,also highly unlikely. There is some challenge going on in court about recess appointments -not sure what the outcome will be.

Auntydem

Strengthening a political base by building support among people who heretofore had paid little attention to politics, and who were therefore particularly susceptible to rhetoric - is actually a pretty good definition of what Republicans have done with the "grassroots" Tea Party. Not having been involved in politics or a party is how Tea Parties proudly define themselves.

Fox exists to build up the right among the less politically informed of our society - and keep them uninformed.

Auntydem

If the executive orders signed by Obama in the last 4 years crossed some line no other president's executive orders ever have or violated the constitution why have no charges been brought; the investigative committee headed by Republicans done nothing? Why not compare executive orders right down the line president by president and cite the difference? Because there is none, perhaps?

Melius

The number of presidential executive orders is relevant in this discussion because of the original editorial, "No checks, no balances?" If one is debating the constitutional theory of executive orders, the magnitude of the substance of each order is insignificant. A president either has the right or doesn't, according to your consitutional philosophy, or more importantly, US Constitutional policy.

deerhunt

Micheal T - unfortunately we seem to be in the minority in this country, will have too see how things play out in the future with liberals in charge . I may have to kick back and wait for somebody to take care of me intead of working 12 hours a day .

svensota

The point was: The Imperial Presidency is no new thing. It is not an Obama thing. It was not a Nixon thing. It was not a Roosevelt thing. It goes back 150 years.

That is the point. Period.

Now, to your new point:

What Lincoln did had to be done as far as the North was concerned. The South had, and still has, a different point of view. I think slavery is about the worst institution on Earth and there is nothing that can excuse it or condone it.

The argument for or against secession was complex and not at all clear at the time. Jefferson Davis, after being jailed for two years, begged for a trial to argue the right of secession. The Union told him to go home to Biloxi and shut up. They knew the legalities were fragile and at that point, moot.

deerhunt

Svensota, so you were for the south succeeding from the union so they could keep slavery alive? I do not consider myself a Republican , just a person who is conservative-make the money before you spend it.

svensota

"In the name of waging war, Republicans supported massive expansion of government power, instituting new policies ranging from a national banking system and income taxes to conscription and emancipation."*

Oh, and the chief executive almost singlehandedly started a war that killed 700,000 Americans.

Who? The first Imperial President, Abraham Lincoln, Republican.

*Source: "LINCOLN: The Decision for War, The Northern Response to Secession" by Russell McClintock, 2008, The University of North Carolina Press.

deerhunt

The number of executive orders are irrevelant, it depends what they are for,could be for something as minor as declaring a special holiday or extreme as appointing persons to a office without conressional approval, it's a slippery slope , careful of what you want to defend , someday it is the other side in power and than you will be complaining.

Melius

Still amazes me how little research the Journal does for its editorials. As one commented, Obama's total of executive orders during his first term numbered 144. That's the fewest in modern history by a US President. GW Bush/Cheney issued 290 over two terms; Clinton hit 363 (two terms); Bush I signed 165 (one term); Sir Ronald Reagan 380 (two terms); etc. While the US Constitution is somewhat vague about the use of presidential executive orders, it has been a standard practice used by this nation's top executive. Is it the fact that Obama suggested executive order on climate change, a pet conspiracy claim by the conservative right, that has bothered the Journal editorialist?